You don’t have to like Labour to recognise which election result is preferable

by Tom

I've voted according to the same basic rules wherever in the country I've lived:

(1) Vote tactically to avoid the least bad outcome.

(2) Boost a proper left candidate wherever possible.

Today I'm doing (1) in the locals (Labour to get rid of the UKIP bloke), and (2) in the general election (Green, because this seat has been safe Tory since the neolithic period).

Outside of ultra safe seats like mine, there are only two possible outcomes to choose from in the national election. Calling it 'lesser evilism' won't change that. Nor will calling it 'voting for what you believe in' or 'casting a positive vote'.

There should be a proper viable left alternative to the two main parties, but there isn't one. I say this as a new Green Party member, by the way. The left is historically weak and a decision in the voting booth on polling day won't bring it back to life. It will take years of organisational work, rooted in communities, to build a viable alternative party of government and the necessary supporting mass movement and set of values and ideas.

Today, in the absence of that, there are two possible outcomes to the general election, and several billion pounds of additional cuts are the major difference between the two. Or to put it another way, several thousand more children having their formative years scarred by poverty, several thousand more disabled people losing the support they rely on, several thousand more people having to visit a foodbank on the way home from work in order to feed themselves or their families. Personally, if it meant one less person having to suffer something like that, I would go down the polling station and vote to prevent it.

As you would guess from reading any number of things I've written about their behaviour and their policies over the last ten years (right up to the latest thing I had published, on Monday), voting Labour seriously sticks in my craw. But it's not about me.

There are nearly 2,000 days between elections to work on changing the political landscape. All of that work is as important as voting, more so in fact.

But on polling day in a general election, as I see it, we take a view of the available alternatives and the predictable consequences, and then we play the hand we're dealt as best we can.

From what you write I presume you would vote UKIP in these constituencies. Is that right?

Ian Sinclair

David Wearing, on 07 May 2015 - 11:20

A Tory or a UKIP MP is still in the Tory column in a hung parliament, so I don’t see how that counts as a tactical vote, even if one could stomach it.

Ian Sinclair, on 07 May 2015 - 14:05

Hi David

Thanks for your reply.

It’s a close contest between the Conservatives and UKIP with Labour trailing both parties in the three constituencies I list.

As the Guardian report, co-written by the Guardian’s Data Editor, assumes, a UKIP victory over the Conservatives in these constituencies would make it less likely that the Conservatives would be able to form the next government. I’m fairly sure you know this already but this is because it will reduce the total number of Tory seats - the number of which will inform the legitimacy of the next government, who gets to try to form a coalition first, whether Cameron’s job might be in danger etc. In addition, it is more complicated than just UKIP being in the “Tory column”, because if UKIP are in the Tory column then it is likely that the Lib Dems won’t be (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-nick-clegg-rules-out-lib-dem-coalition-with-any-party-also-doing-a-deal-with-snp-or-ukip-10203481.html) - additional confirmation that tactically voting for UKIP in these constituencies would damage the Tories, making it less likely they would be able to do the things you list in your blog above.

With all this in mind I presume you would urge people to vote UKIP in the three constituencies mentioned above? Is this right?

Ian

David Wearing, on 08 May 2015 - 14:24

The point is moot now of course since the Tories have a majority. But this vague notion of “legitimacy” in a hung Parliament was always a nonsense. This is a parliamentary democracy. If you can’t pass a vote in the house of commons you can’t govern, irrespective of whether you’re the largest or second largest party. And nothing Clegg said would have prevented Cameron working on the assumption that UKIP MPs would have covered him on budgets and confidence votes without any need for a deal. They were hardly going to side with Labour instead.

Now, I hope this wasn’t some attempt at a clever rhetorical manoeuvre on your part. I’m a second generation immigrant and person of colour who has experienced UKIP style bigotry on many many occasions, first hand, and who will have to live with the consequences of UKIP’s continued rise. Attempting to make someone with my background look complacent about the far right would not be a good look for you.

Ian Sinclair, on 09 May 2015 - 22:34

Hi David

Of course I do not think you are complacent about the rise of UKIP. I am aware of your background – mainly from reading you work on racism, issues around immigration etc.

However, my point is your argument for tactical voting would mean, if one wanted to minimise the chances of a Tory Government, that the best party to vote for the in the three constituencies I mention above (and arguably more – South Thanet, for example) would be UKIP.

Far from being an “attempt at a clever rhetorical manoeuvre”, I’m attempting to highlight the problems with tactical voting – in this case voting for a party which, as you say, makes life miserable for millions of British and non-British people in the UK. Tactical voting generally, and the point I am making, seem, I think, important topics of discussion and something that was relevant for the Left in this election, and will likely come up again in 2020 unless there is significant voting reform.

I’ll leave it here because I don’t think further exchanges will add anything.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Ian

All comments are moderated, and should be respectful of other voices in the discussion. Comments may be edited or deleted at the moderator's discretion.